# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

• Previous Article
Equilibrium periodic dividend strategies with non-exponential discounting for spectrally positive Lévy processes
• JIMO Home
• This Issue
• Next Article
Stochastic-Lazier-Greedy Algorithm for monotone non-submodular maximization
September  2021, 17(5): 2615-2638. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020086

## Approach to the consistency and consensus of Pythagorean fuzzy preference relations based on their partial orders in group decision making

 1 School of Mathematics and Statistics, Linyi University, Linyi, 276005, China 2 Business School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610064, China

* Corresponding author: Ze Shui Xu and Zhen Ming Ma

Received  October 2019 Revised  January 2020 Published  September 2021 Early access  April 2020

Fund Project: The first author is supported by NSF of Shandong Province grant: ZR2017MG027

Although intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations have become powerful techniques to express the decision makers' preference information over alternatives or criteria in group decision making, some limitations of them are pointed out in this paper, then they are overcame by developed the group decision making with Pythagorean fuzzy preference relations (PFPRs). Specially, we provide a partial order on the set of all the PFPRs, based on which, a deviation measure is defined. Then, we check and reach the acceptably multiplicative consistency and consensus of PFPRs associated with the partial order and mathematical programming. Concretely, acceptably multiplicative consistent PRPRs are defined by the deviation between a given PFPR and a multiplicative consistent PFPR constructed by a normal Pythagorean fuzzy priority vector. Then acceptable consensus of a collection of PFPRs is defined by the deviation of each PFPR and the aggregated result from symmetrical Pythagorean fuzzy aggregation operators. Based on which, a method which can simultaneously modify the unacceptable consistency and consensus of PFPRs in a stepwise way is provided. Particularly, we also prove that the collective PFPR obtained by aggregating several individual acceptably consistent PFPRs with various symmetric aggregation operators is still acceptably consistent. Then, a procedure is provided to solve group decision making with PRPRs and a numerical example is given to illustrate the effectiveness of our method.

Citation: Zhen Ming Ma, Ze Shui Xu, Wei Yang. Approach to the consistency and consensus of Pythagorean fuzzy preference relations based on their partial orders in group decision making. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (5) : 2615-2638. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020086
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
The modified PFPRs ${P}^{(h)}$ and their corresponding multiplicatively consistent PFPRs $\widetilde{P}^{(h)}, h = 0, 1, 2$
 ${P}^{(0)}$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.469, 0.8216)$ $(0.7969, 0.3674)$ $(0.9301, 0.2646)$ $(0.8216, 0.469)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.8689, 0.2121)$ $(0.9618, 0.1449)$ $(0.3674, 0.7969)$ $(0.2121, 0.8689)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.7583, 0.3873)$ $(0.2646, 0.9301)$ $(0.1449, 0.9618)$ $(0.3873, 0.7583)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ ${P}^{(1)}$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.469, 0.8216)$ $\underline{(0.8559, 0.3462)}$ $(0.9301, 0.2646)$ $(0.8216, 0.469)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.8689, 0.2121)$ $(0.9618, 0.1449)$ $\underline{(0.3462, 0.8559)}$ $(0.2121, 0.8689)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.7583, 0.3873)$ $(0.2646, 0.9301)$ $(0.1449, 0.9618)$ $(0.3873, 0.7583)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ ${P}^{(2)}$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.469, 0.8216)$ $(0.8559, 0.3462)$ $(0.9301, 0.2646)$ $(0.8216, 0.469)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $\underline{(0.9178, 0.2121)}$ $(0.9618, 0.1449)$ $(0.3462, 0.8559)$ $\underline{(0.2121, 0.9178)}$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.7583, 0.3873)$ $(0.2646, 0.9301)$ $(0.1449, 0.9618)$ $(0.3873, 0.7583)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $\widetilde{P}^{(2)}$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.469, 0.8209)$ $(0.856, 0.3462)$ $(0.9451, 0.1952)$ $(0.8209, 0.469)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.9179, 0.2121)$ $(0.9627, 0.1136)$ $(0.3462, 0.856)$ $(0.2121, 0.9179)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.7583, 0.3873)$ $(0.1952, 0.9451)$ $(0.1136, 0.9627)$ $(0.3873, 0.7583)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $\widetilde{P}^{(1)}$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.4691, 0.8209)$ $(0.8561, 0.3462)$ $(0.9452, 0.1952)$ $(0.8209, 0.4691)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.9179, 0.2121)$ $(0.9627, 0.1136)$ $(0.3462, 0.8561)$ $(0.2121, 0.9179)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.7583, 0.3873)$ $(0.1952, 0.9452)$ $(0.1136, 0.9627)$ $(0.3873, 0.7583)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $\widetilde{P}^{(0)}$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.47, 0.8206)$ $(0.8587, 0.3443)$ $(0.9452, 0.1922)$ $(0.8206, 0.47)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.9192, 0.2111)$ $(0.9628, 0.1122)$ $(0.3443, 0.8587)$ $(0.2111, 0.9192)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.7593, 0.3851)$ $(0.1922, 0.9452)$ $(0.1122, 0.9628)$ $(0.3851, 0.7593)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$
 ${P}^{(0)}$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.469, 0.8216)$ $(0.7969, 0.3674)$ $(0.9301, 0.2646)$ $(0.8216, 0.469)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.8689, 0.2121)$ $(0.9618, 0.1449)$ $(0.3674, 0.7969)$ $(0.2121, 0.8689)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.7583, 0.3873)$ $(0.2646, 0.9301)$ $(0.1449, 0.9618)$ $(0.3873, 0.7583)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ ${P}^{(1)}$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.469, 0.8216)$ $\underline{(0.8559, 0.3462)}$ $(0.9301, 0.2646)$ $(0.8216, 0.469)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.8689, 0.2121)$ $(0.9618, 0.1449)$ $\underline{(0.3462, 0.8559)}$ $(0.2121, 0.8689)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.7583, 0.3873)$ $(0.2646, 0.9301)$ $(0.1449, 0.9618)$ $(0.3873, 0.7583)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ ${P}^{(2)}$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.469, 0.8216)$ $(0.8559, 0.3462)$ $(0.9301, 0.2646)$ $(0.8216, 0.469)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $\underline{(0.9178, 0.2121)}$ $(0.9618, 0.1449)$ $(0.3462, 0.8559)$ $\underline{(0.2121, 0.9178)}$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.7583, 0.3873)$ $(0.2646, 0.9301)$ $(0.1449, 0.9618)$ $(0.3873, 0.7583)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $\widetilde{P}^{(2)}$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.469, 0.8209)$ $(0.856, 0.3462)$ $(0.9451, 0.1952)$ $(0.8209, 0.469)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.9179, 0.2121)$ $(0.9627, 0.1136)$ $(0.3462, 0.856)$ $(0.2121, 0.9179)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.7583, 0.3873)$ $(0.1952, 0.9451)$ $(0.1136, 0.9627)$ $(0.3873, 0.7583)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $\widetilde{P}^{(1)}$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.4691, 0.8209)$ $(0.8561, 0.3462)$ $(0.9452, 0.1952)$ $(0.8209, 0.4691)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.9179, 0.2121)$ $(0.9627, 0.1136)$ $(0.3462, 0.8561)$ $(0.2121, 0.9179)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.7583, 0.3873)$ $(0.1952, 0.9452)$ $(0.1136, 0.9627)$ $(0.3873, 0.7583)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $\widetilde{P}^{(0)}$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.47, 0.8206)$ $(0.8587, 0.3443)$ $(0.9452, 0.1922)$ $(0.8206, 0.47)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.9192, 0.2111)$ $(0.9628, 0.1122)$ $(0.3443, 0.8587)$ $(0.2111, 0.9192)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.7593, 0.3851)$ $(0.1922, 0.9452)$ $(0.1122, 0.9628)$ $(0.3851, 0.7593)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$
Individual preference information from three decision makers
 $P^{(1)}$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.9487, 0.1)$ $(0.8367, 0.3162)$ $(0.1, 0.9487)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.7746, 0.4472)$ $(0.3162, 0.8367)$ $(0.4472, 0.7746)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $P^{(2)}$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.7746, 0.3162)$ $(0.8367, 0.4472)$ $(0.3162, 0.7746)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.7071, 0.3162)$ $(0.4472, 0.8367)$ $(0.3162, 0.7071)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $P^{(3)}$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.7746, 0.4472)$ $(0.8944, 0.3162)$ $(0.4472, 0.7746)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.7746, 0.3162)$ $(0.3162, 0.8944)$ $(0.3162, 0.7746)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$
 $P^{(1)}$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.9487, 0.1)$ $(0.8367, 0.3162)$ $(0.1, 0.9487)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.7746, 0.4472)$ $(0.3162, 0.8367)$ $(0.4472, 0.7746)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $P^{(2)}$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.7746, 0.3162)$ $(0.8367, 0.4472)$ $(0.3162, 0.7746)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.7071, 0.3162)$ $(0.4472, 0.8367)$ $(0.3162, 0.7071)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $P^{(3)}$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.7746, 0.4472)$ $(0.8944, 0.3162)$ $(0.4472, 0.7746)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$ $(0.7746, 0.3162)$ $(0.3162, 0.8944)$ $(0.3162, 0.7746)$ $(0.7071, 0.7071)$
Iterative process of the proposed method for the acceptable concensus
 $h$ $(D(P^{(1h)}, P_{Agg}^{(h)}), D(P^{(2h)}, P_{Agg}^{(h)}), D(P^{(3h)}, P_{Agg}^{(h)}))$ $l_0$ $i_0, j_0$ 0 $(0.3589, 0.2902, 0.2578)$ 1 $(1, 2)$ 1 $(0.271, 0.2774, 0.2244)$ 1 $(2, 3)$ 2 $(0.2205, 0.2606, 0.2291)$ 2 $(1, 3)$ 3 $(0.2175, 0.2288, 0.2203)$ 2 $(2, 3)$ 4 $(0.2037, 0.1762, 0.1986)$ 2 $(1, 2)$ 5 $(0.1943, 0.1377, 0.1875)$ 1 $(1, 3)$ 6 $(0.1493, 0.1540, 0.1598)$ 3 $(1, 2)$ 7 $(0.1188, 0.1355, 0.1076)$ 2 $(1, 3)$ 8 $(0.1017, 0.0787, 0.0814)$ 1 $(1, 2)$ 9 $(0.0780, 0.0628, 0.0757)$
 $h$ $(D(P^{(1h)}, P_{Agg}^{(h)}), D(P^{(2h)}, P_{Agg}^{(h)}), D(P^{(3h)}, P_{Agg}^{(h)}))$ $l_0$ $i_0, j_0$ 0 $(0.3589, 0.2902, 0.2578)$ 1 $(1, 2)$ 1 $(0.271, 0.2774, 0.2244)$ 1 $(2, 3)$ 2 $(0.2205, 0.2606, 0.2291)$ 2 $(1, 3)$ 3 $(0.2175, 0.2288, 0.2203)$ 2 $(2, 3)$ 4 $(0.2037, 0.1762, 0.1986)$ 2 $(1, 2)$ 5 $(0.1943, 0.1377, 0.1875)$ 1 $(1, 3)$ 6 $(0.1493, 0.1540, 0.1598)$ 3 $(1, 2)$ 7 $(0.1188, 0.1355, 0.1076)$ 2 $(1, 3)$ 8 $(0.1017, 0.0787, 0.0814)$ 1 $(1, 2)$ 9 $(0.0780, 0.0628, 0.0757)$
Individual preference information from three decision makers
 $P^{(1)}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.707, 0.447)$ $(0.837, 0.316)$ $(0.707, 0.548)$ $(0.447, 0.707)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.775, 0.447)$ $(0.548, 0.775)$ $(0.316, 0.837)$ $(0.447, 0.775)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.548, 0.775)$ $(0.548, 0.707)$ $(0.775, 0.548)$ $(0.775, 0.548)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $P^{(2)}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.775, 0.316)$ $(0.894, 0.447)$ $(0.775, 0.548)$ $(0.316, 0.775)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.707, 0.316)$ $(0.548, 0.837)$ $(0.447, 0.894)$ $(0.316, 0.707)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.632, 0.775)$ $(0.548, 0.775)$ $(0.837, 0.548)$ $(0.775, 0.632)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $P^{(3)}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.775, 0.447)$ $(0.894, 0.316)$ $(0.837, 0.447)$ $(0.447, 0.775)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.775, 0.316)$ $(0.447, 0.837)$ $(0.316, 0.894)$ $(0.316, 0.775)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.447, 0.548)$ $(0.447, 0.837)$ $(0.837, 0.447)$ $(0.548, 0.447)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$
 $P^{(1)}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.707, 0.447)$ $(0.837, 0.316)$ $(0.707, 0.548)$ $(0.447, 0.707)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.775, 0.447)$ $(0.548, 0.775)$ $(0.316, 0.837)$ $(0.447, 0.775)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.548, 0.775)$ $(0.548, 0.707)$ $(0.775, 0.548)$ $(0.775, 0.548)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $P^{(2)}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.775, 0.316)$ $(0.894, 0.447)$ $(0.775, 0.548)$ $(0.316, 0.775)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.707, 0.316)$ $(0.548, 0.837)$ $(0.447, 0.894)$ $(0.316, 0.707)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.632, 0.775)$ $(0.548, 0.775)$ $(0.837, 0.548)$ $(0.775, 0.632)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $P^{(3)}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.775, 0.447)$ $(0.894, 0.316)$ $(0.837, 0.447)$ $(0.447, 0.775)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.775, 0.316)$ $(0.447, 0.837)$ $(0.316, 0.894)$ $(0.316, 0.775)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.447, 0.548)$ $(0.447, 0.837)$ $(0.837, 0.447)$ $(0.548, 0.447)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$
Modified individual preference information from three decision makers
 $P^{(1, 44, 0)}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.767, 0.341)$ $(0.89, 0.149)$ $(0.88, 0.136)$ $(0.341, 0.767)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.769, 0.316)$ $(0.748, 0.271)$ $(0.149, 0.89)$ $(0.316, 0.769)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.626, 0.549)$ $(0.136, 0.88)$ $(0.271, 0.748)$ $(0.549, 0.626)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $P^{(2, 44, 0)}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.775, 0.316)$ $(0.894, 0.154)$ $(0.883, 0.128)$ $(0.316, 0.775)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.772, 0.322)$ $(0.76, 0.271)$ $(0.154, 0.894)$ $(0.322, 0.772)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.624, 0.549)$ $(0.128, 0.883)$ $(0.271, 0.76)$ $(0.549, 0.624)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $P^{(3, 44, 0)}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.764, 0.327)$ $(0.894, 0.155)$ $(0.874, 0.13)$ $(0.327, 0.764)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.775, 0.316)$ $(0.756, 0.274)$ $(0.155, 0.894)$ $(0.316, 0.775)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.628, 0.548)$ $(0.13, 0.874)$ $(0.274, 0.756)$ $(0.548, 0.628)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $\widetilde{N}^{(44)}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.75, 0.316)$ $(0.894, 0.149)$ $(0.883, 0.128)$ $(0.316, 0.775)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.775, 0.316)$ $(0.76, 0.271)$ $(0.149, 0.894)$ $(0.316, 0.775)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.628, 0.548)$ $(0.128, 0.883)$ $(0.271, 0.76)$ $(0.548, 0.628)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $P^{(44, 0)}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.769, 0.328)$ $(0.893, 0.153)$ $(0.879, 0.131)$ $(0.328, 0.769)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.772, 0.318)$ $(0.755, 0.272)$ $(0.153, 0.893)$ $(0.318, 0.772)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.626, 0.549)$ $(0.131, 0.879)$ $(0.272, 0.755)$ $(0.549, 0.626)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$
 $P^{(1, 44, 0)}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.767, 0.341)$ $(0.89, 0.149)$ $(0.88, 0.136)$ $(0.341, 0.767)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.769, 0.316)$ $(0.748, 0.271)$ $(0.149, 0.89)$ $(0.316, 0.769)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.626, 0.549)$ $(0.136, 0.88)$ $(0.271, 0.748)$ $(0.549, 0.626)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $P^{(2, 44, 0)}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.775, 0.316)$ $(0.894, 0.154)$ $(0.883, 0.128)$ $(0.316, 0.775)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.772, 0.322)$ $(0.76, 0.271)$ $(0.154, 0.894)$ $(0.322, 0.772)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.624, 0.549)$ $(0.128, 0.883)$ $(0.271, 0.76)$ $(0.549, 0.624)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $P^{(3, 44, 0)}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.764, 0.327)$ $(0.894, 0.155)$ $(0.874, 0.13)$ $(0.327, 0.764)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.775, 0.316)$ $(0.756, 0.274)$ $(0.155, 0.894)$ $(0.316, 0.775)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.628, 0.548)$ $(0.13, 0.874)$ $(0.274, 0.756)$ $(0.548, 0.628)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $\widetilde{N}^{(44)}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.75, 0.316)$ $(0.894, 0.149)$ $(0.883, 0.128)$ $(0.316, 0.775)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.775, 0.316)$ $(0.76, 0.271)$ $(0.149, 0.894)$ $(0.316, 0.775)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.628, 0.548)$ $(0.128, 0.883)$ $(0.271, 0.76)$ $(0.548, 0.628)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $P^{(44, 0)}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.769, 0.328)$ $(0.893, 0.153)$ $(0.879, 0.131)$ $(0.328, 0.769)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.772, 0.318)$ $(0.755, 0.272)$ $(0.153, 0.893)$ $(0.318, 0.772)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.626, 0.549)$ $(0.131, 0.879)$ $(0.272, 0.755)$ $(0.549, 0.626)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$
The modified individual preference information from three decision makers by Xu's method [41]
 $\widetilde{P}^{(1)}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.71, 0.445)$ $(0.01, 0.056)$ $(0.011, 0.553)$ $(0.445, 0.71)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.047, 0.013)$ $(0.512, 0.802)$ $(0.056, 0.01)$ $(0.013, 0.047)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.529, 0.619)$ $(0.553, 0.011)$ $(0.802, 0.512)$ $(0.619, 0.529)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $\widetilde{P}^{(2)}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.71, 0.445)$ $(0.01, 0.056)$ $(0.011, 0.553)$ $(0.445, 0.71)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.047, 0.014)$ $(0.512, 0.802)$ $(0.056, 0.01)$ $(0.014, 0.047)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.529, 0.619)$ $(0.553, 0.011)$ $(0.802, 0.512)$ $(0.619, 0.529)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $\widetilde{P}^{(3)}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.728, 0.447)$ $(0.011, 0.132)$ $(0.011, 0.553)$ $(0.447, 0.728)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.046, 0.03)$ $(0.509, 0.804)$ $(0.132, 0.011)$ $(0.03, 0.046)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.5, 0.573)$ $(0.553, 0.011)$ $(0.804, 0.509)$ $(0.573, 0.5)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $\widetilde{P}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.716, 0.446)$ $(0.01, 0.074)$ $(0.011, 0.553)$ $(0.446, 0.716)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.047, 0.018)$ $(0.511, 0.803)$ $(0.074, 0.01)$ $(0.018, 0.047)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.519, 0.603)$ $(0.553, 0.011)$ $(0.803, 0.511)$ $(0.603, 0.519)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$
 $\widetilde{P}^{(1)}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.71, 0.445)$ $(0.01, 0.056)$ $(0.011, 0.553)$ $(0.445, 0.71)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.047, 0.013)$ $(0.512, 0.802)$ $(0.056, 0.01)$ $(0.013, 0.047)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.529, 0.619)$ $(0.553, 0.011)$ $(0.802, 0.512)$ $(0.619, 0.529)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $\widetilde{P}^{(2)}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.71, 0.445)$ $(0.01, 0.056)$ $(0.011, 0.553)$ $(0.445, 0.71)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.047, 0.014)$ $(0.512, 0.802)$ $(0.056, 0.01)$ $(0.014, 0.047)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.529, 0.619)$ $(0.553, 0.011)$ $(0.802, 0.512)$ $(0.619, 0.529)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $\widetilde{P}^{(3)}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.728, 0.447)$ $(0.011, 0.132)$ $(0.011, 0.553)$ $(0.447, 0.728)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.046, 0.03)$ $(0.509, 0.804)$ $(0.132, 0.011)$ $(0.03, 0.046)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.5, 0.573)$ $(0.553, 0.011)$ $(0.804, 0.509)$ $(0.573, 0.5)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $\widetilde{P}$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.716, 0.446)$ $(0.01, 0.074)$ $(0.011, 0.553)$ $(0.446, 0.716)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.047, 0.018)$ $(0.511, 0.803)$ $(0.074, 0.01)$ $(0.018, 0.047)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$ $(0.519, 0.603)$ $(0.553, 0.011)$ $(0.803, 0.511)$ $(0.603, 0.519)$ $(0.707, 0.707)$
 [1] Naziya Parveen, Prakash N. Kamble. An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making in intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Mathematical Foundations of Computing, 2021, 4 (1) : 61-71. doi: 10.3934/mfc.2021002 [2] Harish Garg, Kamal Kumar. Group decision making approach based on possibility degree measure under linguistic interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set environment. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020, 16 (1) : 445-467. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018162 [3] Xue Yan, Heap-Yih Chong, Jing Zhou, Zhaohan Sheng, Feng Xu. Fairness preference based decision-making model for concession period in PPP projects. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020, 16 (1) : 11-23. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018137 [4] Ana F. Carazo, Ignacio Contreras, Trinidad Gómez, Fátima Pérez. A project portfolio selection problem in a group decision-making context. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2012, 8 (1) : 243-261. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2012.8.243 [5] Muhammad Qiyas, Saleem Abdullah, Shahzaib Ashraf, Saifullah Khan, Aziz Khan. Triangular picture fuzzy linguistic induced ordered weighted aggregation operators and its application on decision making problems. Mathematical Foundations of Computing, 2019, 2 (3) : 183-201. doi: 10.3934/mfc.2019013 [6] Feyza Gürbüz, Panos M. Pardalos. A decision making process application for the slurry production in ceramics via fuzzy cluster and data mining. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2012, 8 (2) : 285-297. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2012.8.285 [7] Harish Garg, Dimple Rani. Multi-criteria decision making method based on Bonferroni mean aggregation operators of complex intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (5) : 2279-2306. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020069 [8] Harish Garg. Some robust improved geometric aggregation operators under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment for multi-criteria decision-making process. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2018, 14 (1) : 283-308. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2017047 [9] Bin Dan, Huali Gao, Yang Zhang, Ru Liu, Songxuan Ma. Integrated order acceptance and scheduling decision making in product service supply chain with hard time windows constraints. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2018, 14 (1) : 165-182. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2017041 [10] Imre Csiszar and Paul C. Shields. Consistency of the BIC order estimator. Electronic Research Announcements, 1999, 5: 123-127. [11] G.S. Liu, J.Z. Zhang. Decision making of transportation plan, a bilevel transportation problem approach. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2005, 1 (3) : 305-314. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2005.1.305 [12] Ruiyue Lin, Zhiping Chen, Zongxin Li. A new approach for allocating fixed costs among decision making units. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2016, 12 (1) : 211-228. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016.12.211 [13] Hamed Fazlollahtabar, Mohammad Saidi-Mehrabad. Optimizing multi-objective decision making having qualitative evaluation. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2015, 11 (3) : 747-762. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2015.11.747 [14] A. C. Eberhard, J-P. Crouzeix. Existence of closed graph, maximal, cyclic pseudo-monotone relations and revealed preference theory. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2007, 3 (2) : 233-255. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2007.3.233 [15] Jian Liu, Xin Wu, Jiang-Ling Lei. The combined impacts of consumer green preference and fairness concern on the decision of three-party supply chain. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021090 [16] Yilun Shang. Group pinning consensus under fixed and randomly switching topologies with acyclic partition. Networks & Heterogeneous Media, 2014, 9 (3) : 553-573. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2014.9.553 [17] Jean-François Biasse. Subexponential time relations in the class group of large degree number fields. Advances in Mathematics of Communications, 2014, 8 (4) : 407-425. doi: 10.3934/amc.2014.8.407 [18] Harish Garg. Novel correlation coefficients under the intuitionistic multiplicative environment and their applications to decision-making process. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2018, 14 (4) : 1501-1519. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018018 [19] Jian Jin, Weijian Mi. An AIMMS-based decision-making model for optimizing the intelligent stowage of export containers in a single bay. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2019, 12 (4&5) : 1101-1115. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2019076 [20] Gholam Hassan Shirdel, Somayeh Ramezani-Tarkhorani. A new method for ranking decision making units using common set of weights: A developed criterion. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020, 16 (2) : 633-651. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018171

2020 Impact Factor: 1.801